Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

But that's maybe because I'm not a rich, White, privileged socialite b***h.

Apparently the word "bitch" is sexist, even in this context and even though you were sensitive enough to use an asterisk. It was a 3-3 decision btw.
Maybe I'll get a hide for leaving out the *

Makes one wonder how some folk manage to get through the day.

OR...they actually *like* and are secretly OK with the image of a black woman folded in half, dressed scandalously while upholding a WHITE socialite "proper" B***H.

It's a good thing the decision was 3-3 and the post remained (much to their chagrin). There's hope for DU after all.

Just because the chair in the image is more offensive than the sexist slur you're defending, that doesn't make it ok, nor does it mean that people who object to your use of the slur "actually *like* and are secretly OK with" the image.

were a rich white woman and, they are secretly jealous that they are not.

Brings to mind that quote about American Attitude:

the intent/motivation that caused the post to begin with. Doubling Down just reinforces my thoughts about the post.

I'll have to go back and re-read your post when I'm not getting distracted by so many ridiculous questions.

exactly What All is going on in that picture. The Shock Value is Stunning ... I will give the artist/creator of the piece that much.

That the benevolent patriarchal system is so ingrained in our society is evident in the posters actions.

Again, much education is needed.

Do we know without a doubt that she was a willing, consenting participant of this photo ... ?

Bitch Magazine

http://www.bitchmagazine.org/?

Bitch Media's mission is to provide and encourage an empowered, feminist response to mainstream media and popular culture.

If Snoop does it, it must be fine for you too, eh? Go for it.

So you took a dodge instead? Why was that?

It was a simple question.

Am I to take it that you disapprove of that group of feminists choosing the name "Bitch" for their publication?

and I am asking if- citing B*tch magazine would be any different that citing lyrics in defense of racial slurs? What would be the difference exactly, in claiming ni***rs is not offensive because, Dr Dre?

Same thing. Except the racist slurs would be zapped, and no one would argue they are on some "list of words" they desperately need to use.

Those people call themselves feminists and apparently disagree with you.

Your breathless mini-rants notwithstanding, I took no position on the issue.

And I will forego alerting on you for using a racial slur. Did you think your use of asterisks would make it okay?

If you didn't want to answer it, you didn't have to reply.

But you did choose to reply, except that you didn't deign to answer the question. Instead, you went on a weird attack, accusing me of being okay with the use of racial slurs because rappers use them. I didn't do that, nor did I defend Bitch magazine.

I'll ask the question again: What about the feminist Bitch magazine? (I imagine this has been hashed out before, but I haven't seen it. I also imagine there is some division within feminist ranks about it, especially given that it exists and calls itself feminist.)

And the use of those slurs by people not in the in-group. That is what bettyellen tried to explain by her analogy. Black men and women using the n-word when they speak to each other is something completely different from me as a white woman using it to refer to a black person. Feminists using the b-word is completely different from a person of indeterminate gender on the internet using it to describe a woman. The same goes with LGBT slurs, ethnic slurs, classist slurs. You know this, Comrade Grumpy, and it is very glib of you to pretend otherwise.

You say it's okay for members of an oppressed group to "retake" a slur and empower themselves by reclaiming it. I get that. Not sure that I agree, but I get it.

But bettyellen appears to be taking the opposite tack: That's it's never okay; that's it's just as bad for feminists to use the b-word as it is for black people to use the n-word.

At least I think that's what she's saying. She never did get around to actually responding to my question about Bitch magazine, instead flying off the handle with all that rapper claptrap. She could have just said "yes" or "no" and appended an explanation of her position.

that when communities re-take a word that has been used as a slur against them, they stop using it as a slur. When a magazine like Bitch Magazine uses that word, they aren't using it as a slur. And when an African American greets a friend with the N word, that person is not using it as a slur. And when a member of the LGBT community uses the word "queer," they are not using it as a slur.

A person can think it's OK to reclaim a word in that way, but still find it problematic when the same word continues to be used as a slur.

but by your own standards- they would also be calling people all sorts of racial slurs because… someone else does it.

You didn't need anyone to explain that to you. And you won't the next time you play coy about the issue.

...through, lo, these many replies.

as RACIST AND SEXIST SLURS TEND TO OFFEND. Is that clear enough? Did you really need that explained?
Somehow, I doubt it. It has been said way too many times here. Yet some keep feigning confusion. I don't buy it.

Because in the case of black peopel there is not a separate group defined here, with women it appears that some are carving out a group of women - those most aware of their oppression and can use the word and the others are female cohorts who are duped by men and not allowed to use the word.

In other words, it appears some women want to have more privilege than others when it comes to language and DU posting. Who keeps up with all of these rules and who makes them? Is there a female group leader for all feminists who gets to decide what women (and no one else) can use a certain word?

and why they themselves can use it just fine because they have a secret decoder ring.

On the one hand we are asked to be understanding and sympathetic to something but then told we are excluded because we can never be part of a group. We are all equal and should be treated the same but we are all different and can never fully get/understand someone/something else.

Exclusion and inclusion mixed and matched and shuffled around in a dizzying array of word salads and confusion where each and every word, thought, action is scrutinized to find fault and underlying hatred of another group of people. If you disagree with the analysis it is because you don't understand and your hatred is so ingrained you are too blind to see it. Hence the priests will talk to you about your sinful/lustful ways and educate you - but with so many brands of the religion it is hard to keep track of which one to follow or which one you are offending today.

Especially sad when we all agree on basic premises - inequality exists and it is wrong and harms everyone. For everyone addressed and changed ten new ones pop up.

as RACIST AND SEXIST SLURS TEND TO OFFEND. Is that clear enough? Did you really need that explained?
Somehow, I doubt it. It has been said way too many times here.

In a subgroup of women who have decided they can use it but not others?

affectionately use - can you guess what word?- among themselves but, sadly you would be roundly condemned for the same word. as would anyone one using the word as a slur.

in fact, you'd probably be kicked off DU for using the word because it's on one of those "lists"- the ones libertarians here are always whining about. HA.

Are you really claiming to be unfamiliar with this concept? Well then, you should study up instead of asking silly questions.

Just some? Can any woman use the b word? Do they have to pass a purity test so that none of those 'female cohort' types would be condemned for using it?

it would be better if you just kind wrapped your mind around that for a while.
People within a group can use the same word to convey anger, hatred, kinship, love. Yep.

There is no static group* of judges or purity test- most people can easily see when slurs are used with anger to denigrate someone. Is not even up for debate in this thread.

*look up in group usage, because it's not what you think

The re-appropriation of a slur is quite different from using the slur as a slur, and you know that very well. BlueCaliDem wasn't reclaiming the slur - he or she was using it as a slur. that is very clear, and as such, it is misogynistic slur used on a woman, and that causes the reaction. Your patter about 'carving out groups of women' and female group leaders is ridiculous, and you know it. BlueCaliDem used the b-word as a slur against a woman, and we reacted. That some feminists employ the strategy of reclaiming that word among themselves is really irrelevant, because that wasn't what BlueCaliDem did. That should be clear - "That image is disgusting. But that's maybe because I'm not a rich, White, privileged socialite b***h." How anyone can think that the slur was used in a reclaimed fashion, i.e., used by an oppressed group among themselves to turn it into something positive, is beyond me.

Whether oppressed groups should reclaim such slurs is a different discussion - and one that feminists and other groups may disagree on...because no oppressed group is monolithical. Both Martin Luther King, jr. and Malcom X were opponents of racism, even if they disagreed on how to combat it. Malcolm X may have thought that MLK, jr was duped by whites when he advocated non-violence, but that doesn't make either of them less relevant as leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.

resentment against african americans that it's widely judged not okay to say n*****- but AAs can?
resentment against women that's it's not okay to say b***h or c**t, but women can? yes, I think that's the point SS was trying to make. He hasn't figured out basic decent human behavior, and needs to find a loophole or claim this hobbles *poor misunderstood* white people or men.

Yes! These IS a list of words you shouldn't use here, it's a moderated site w/ standards. There is a wide wide gulf between this purity test bullshit and communicating without expressing bias and hatred towards others. It is not so hard as people here *constantly* pretend it is.

are you really going to pretend you do not know this?

So using the word is fine with you, by anyone, as long as it is not used in a derogatory manner? But who defines if it is used in a 'bad' manner?

So this is OK (note, not using the title as someone would use that to alert - also, used a URL shorten-er since the offending word was in the URL and could also trigger an alert by someone offended by seeing it):

http://bit.ly/1jAkhFh

But this would be?
http://bit.ly/1hM7lvp

This entire website:
http://bit.ly/1eT4b6o

A couple more:
http://bit.ly/1f75fpk

http://bit.ly/1g0ZoVC

do you need explained AGAIN? I'm not sure why you keep stumbling over this concept. It was explained clearly to you yesterday.

why you are so desperate for permission to call people "n******s and b***hes"?

Not about what I want to call people, but nice attempt at a smear (guess smears are ok in your book).

Some folks think the use of the word by men, at all, is wrong - but not by women. Yet women and men should be equal. There is a divide that some want kept in place while saying they are trying to tear down divides between them.

It is further broken down by some women seeing themselves as different than others (cohorts vs non-cohorts) which gives them a higher plateau to stand on and claim the 'right' to use a word and that anyone else using it hates women. When we discuss black people and the n word it is not about a sub group but the entire group folks are speaking of - yet with some women there is a divide as to who is more qualified and allowed to use a word without being called something bad because of it's use (ie, "I know the proper use of it, you don't, so I can use it with impunity and you cannot&quot .

It is a way to further separate and isolate a group from others - claiming one group is more enlightened than another and those who don't buy into their beliefs/ideals are 'sinners'.

As far as the n word goes it is used a lot where I live by both black and white people (like, 'yo, what's up N?') which actually goes to a sub group here (poor whites and blacks living together) where people outside the group would be seen as using it in the negative if they said the same thing (it would also been seen as negative by some word nannies who think they can define for others who can use what word when and whether the use is offensive to others. An attempt to define for another group what they should think about a word).

The word does not 'belong' to one sole group who gets to decide what is meant by it's use. One can use it and not hate women/blacks or feel any different about that group because it was used. In my example groups co-mingle because it is not about race but about commonality between the groups. In the case of the b word the desire, by some, is not commonality between people but creating a separate space that others cannot be part of if they don't have the right body parts to match.

This is not really about the n or the b word at all, but about how groups treat each other and communication and trying to tell others who and what they are based on the use of word (condemning others for not being pure enough to use a word that they themselves believe they can use).

maybe not you personally, but from the above it is clear, you think African Americans here have no standing to complain over the use of the word "n****r", nor do women over "b***h". None- because that would make them "superior" to white men. = Poor white men not able to slur others as freely as they want.
THAT is what you are advocating for. "Poor white men not able to slur others as freely as they want." is your argument above distilled into something concise and coherent.

Americans" (when not used by a slur). And you have a problem with that- interesting.

So you argue if we complain about the KKK using that word, African Americans are claiming to be "more enlightened" and THEY are the group engaging in separatist behavior? Not the KKK? Really now?
African Americans are choosing to isolate themselves by standing up to abusive language? That is some Tea Baggin bullshit, right there. Thanks for being clearer about your position.

So you want to base such things on what you can see of their skin color? Nothing at all to do with the culture, where someone grew up, etc and so on - you want to base things on a person's race.

Interesting that skin color has such meaning to you. What do you see when you see a black person? What do you think when men see women (that we want to have sex with them, are undressing them with our eyes, etc?)

You see to want to apply templates to people based on sex and race as though those are the sole definers of who they are, and if they don't fit they are 'cohorts' or 'traitors' to their gender/race. YOU and a few others want to define who can use what when based on gender and race because that is what you see when you look at someone.

Not everyone grew up like one might see in some book they read. A person is more than the total of their color or gender, they have experiences which transcend your classifications of them and the box you try to fit them in.

So no - I don't want to judge who can use a word based on skin color or gender. I don't think I don't belong in certain groups or they don't belong in mine as we have many shared experiences and how we choose to communicate should not be left up to some person on the internet or some other person considering themselves an expert on our lives.

We have much more civil discourse in real life than here since we aren't telling people they are bad for talking to each other how they all accept. Come on over to my hood and stand in the store here and tell people how they are wrong and they should only say what you approve of. It would be interesting. They would look at you like you were from a foreign planet.

You know who folks don't want using certain language - keyboard commandos and folks in ivory towers who feel they can preach to the unwashed masses and try to 'civilize' them by removing their 'savagery'. You know, the folks who tried to educate and transform the Indians and others. The folks who think the real world is some university text and everyone is divided up by experience in the world by race/gender and that people that don't look a certain way can't understand - except themselves of course, they understand.

except many of us are human beings, and we can and will judge you for the way you speak of, and to, others.
you don't have to like it.

I find your attempts at controlling the language of others interesting, especially when you are basing the person based on the color of their skin.

Seems it is easy to judge others - from what they open, to how they look, to words they are not allowed to say (if they do say them they are racist). Racism and misogyny - when that is all you attempt to read into things from people that is all you will see.

Keep trying to convince us that everyone on du is misogynistic, it really helps When you see the 'terrorists' everywhere you end up with things like homeland security/tsa/etc where everyone is a suspect and that bottle of 'water' they have is probably a bomb (and if not, then the fact they are even carrying one indicates that maybe they think like a terrorist).

Speak a word with friends? Racist. Look at the woman who walked into your office and think she is pretty? Sexist and you want to have sex with her. Hit you finger with a hammer and say son-of-a-word that freaks out people? Misogynist which means you hate all women. You prefer women over men and marry a woman and have sex/kids with her? Sexist because you don't do the same thing with men?

Everyone sucks but the chosen few.

and that is EXACTLY what you are claiming on this thread.

You are posting nonsense. You know one person (me or anyone) is not the judge. Society does judge this behavior. No one is controlling anyone- that is libertarian bullshit.


And your last three paragraphs are over the top BS all about your perceived victimhood. Boo fucking hoo. You still don't get a pass using racial slurs at DU (and not because of me- but because the group rejects your ideas on the matter) and most of us prefer it that way. Take it up with Skinner if you feel this is an huge infringement of your freedumb.

when one cannot discuss they retreat.

But hey, your side is winning:

N-word use lands Poulsbo Elementary principal on leave
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024380296

People will fear speaking because a few progressive folks will make sure their speech is curtailed or punished, all in the name of freedom and diversity. What next, can't look at women or open doors for them? Oh wait.

that people who complain about slurs being hurled at them are at fault for being divisive. Not the people who hurl the abuse. You said that outright, and it's a popular opinion- among good old boys and tea bagging idiot racists.

I imagine there are many sub-literate idiots who believe that feminism is simply one, and only one, monolithic block of demographics, and expect all members of that very broad demographic to agree with any and all other members.

Not that you would ever imply such an invalid and lack-of-thought-out position, demanding consistency from an inconsistent world.


I also imagine those same sub-literate idiots have a difficult time believing how incredibly transparent their disingenuous and insincere lines of questions actually are...

so true I selectively pulled some of your text "incredibly transparent their disingenuous and insincere lines of questions" into my response without crediting you, because that shoe fit so well.

It has nothing at all to do with calling the woman in the photograph what the poster called. Good old grumpy, always ready to come in and stir shit.

pass to slur women and people of color freely. But Snoop says it too, said every racist teenager in the 90s.

And it started a lot of conversations about race, words, and intent.

although they can be a pain to go through while they happen. Is there anything written about this band that you know of? I'd absolutely love to know more.

Thank you!

Sly and the Family Stone were an amazingly innovative band at their peak.

about how words mean nothing. Hilarious.

Number 1,589.

This one won't end any differently. People yelling about the word, people still using the word, and juries still leaving the word.

Looks like we have to wait until Number 1,590 to see what the feel of DU is like then.

It would be interesting to see all these jury alerts to see what members think, wouldn't it?

Well most people, anyway. There are always a few who refuse to evolve no matter what.